Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Response to Neil Obstat  (Read 5726 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Yeti

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 3479
  • Reputation: +2006/-447
  • Gender: Male
Re: Response to Neil Obstat
« Reply #45 on: March 17, 2023, 12:33:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There is a case oddly similar to the Feeney case a few decades earlier in France. I think if people read about other similar cases of rogue priests and how they are handled, it will give the Feeney case some context and make it more understandable.

    In the first decade of the 20th century there was a priest named Fr. Ernet Rigaud, who published a magazine commenting on the condemned false secret of La Salette, which Catholics are forbidden to discuss and which is on the Index of Forbidden Books. The Osservatore Romano published a note indicating that this priest was violating numerous rules, and that his publication was scandalous on several levels, and warned the faithful not to read it. In response, apparently, Fr. Rigaud said this notice was inauthentic and did not accept what it said. (much like Feeney and his followers issuing various quibbles about seals, docuмents, legal chicanery and so on). In response, Cardinal Merry del Val, the head of the Holy Office, wrote to Rigaud's bishop and told him that yes, that statement in the Osservatore Romano was true and authentic, and to see to it that he enforce it in his diocese.

    The bishop, in response, suspended Rigaud a divinis and forbade him to publish this newsletter any more. Rigaud ignored all these things, and kept saying Mass in violation of this. Finally, St. Pius X sent him a personal letter asking him to obey. As I recall, Rigaud said the letter from St. Pius X was inauthentic, and would eventually died in that state.

    The point is that there have been priests who got a bee in their bonnet about something or other, refused to obey their ecclesiastical superiors due to pride, used all kinds of legalistic sophistries to explain away their punishments and explain why they would ignore their censures, and normally never repented. Feeney is just the only one Americans have heard of.


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31195
    • Reputation: +27111/-494
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #46 on: March 17, 2023, 12:33:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Every condemned person says he was framed or railroaded.

    I can't speak to your other points, but I want to address this one.

    This is a very weak argument.

    So...if you found yourself on trial for murder, and you're innocent, you would say "I didn't do it" -- and someone would likely come back with "Hah! That's classic. Every criminal claims they didn't do it!"

    In other words, it's neither here nor there what "every criminal" or "every condemned person" does. The question is: was THIS particular excommunication legitimate?

    This is basically a form of the "Begging the Question" fallacy: "Of course you're guilty. We're here at YOUR trial for murder, aren't we? That doesn't happen to the average Joe. Most of the time, the defendant is indeed guilty!" as if the guilt is a foregone conclusion in this case.

    Just freaking out at the man wearing a jumpsuit, standing trial, being called "Defendant", and being sketched by the Court Artist does NOT necessarily prove or imply anything about his guilt. You have to lay aside human psychology here.
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com


    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 3479
    • Reputation: +2006/-447
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #47 on: March 17, 2023, 12:36:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So...if you found yourself on trial for murder, and you're innocent, you would say "I didn't do it" -- and someone would likely come back with "Hah! That's classic. Every criminal claims they didn't do it!"

    In other words, that's neither here nor there.
    .

    We're not talking here about someone who is currently on trial, but someone who has been condemned by competent authority. Feeney was excommunicated. In the example you are using, this would be equivalent to someone who has been found guilty saying he is innocent. That's a very different thing.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31195
    • Reputation: +27111/-494
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #48 on: March 17, 2023, 12:42:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The point is that there have been priests who got a bee in their bonnet about something or other, refused to obey their ecclesiastical superiors due to pride, used all kinds of legalistic sophistries to explain away their punishments and explain why they would ignore their censures, and normally never repented. Feeney is just the only one Americans have heard of.

    Again, you're telling the sordid tale of a rogue priest. In your other example (murder) I could list hundreds of examples of actual sordid murder cases, where the defendant WAS guilty.

    But again, the 10 million dollar question is: does this guilty rogue priest case relate to Fr. Feeney, or not? That is open for debate.

    You have expressed your opinion on the matter, but here is my point in bumping this thread: the Feeney case is FAR from simple, open-and-shut, and highly controversial. Unlike, say, the case of Martin Luther. Therefore, I think it is called for and legitimate to leave discussion of this topic open on CathInfo, along with all the other allowed controversial topics.

    Raoul76 says Feeneyites are heretics, full stop. And that I'm giving heresy a platform here on CathInfo, and therefore I'm morally culpable -- i.e., guilty. I'm sorry, but he hasn't proven his case. The posts by Neil Obstat and others (earlier in this thread) show that there's more to the Feeney case than the usual 10-second elevator pitch most people are familiar with.

    Heck, I wrote a couple poems against Feeneyites. Again, my target was the crude, simplistic view of them. I might have been ignorant when I wrote them. Let's just say one matures as they age, and you "live and learn". I'm not quite as proud of those poems as I once was; because I see a bit more of the nuance now. I think it's better for me to stay out of it, unless I want to put in the time to do the issue justice. 

    God forbid I ever be found to be censuring the truth in some controversy. If I don't know, I'm going to be cautious and allow both sides to debate about it. "In doubtful things, liberty."
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10308
    • Reputation: +6219/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #49 on: March 17, 2023, 01:36:21 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    This is completely false. He appealed for redress to the superior of the Jesuit order, who in response sent a Jesuit to speak with him, who (if I recall correctly) would assess the situation. Feeney refused to so much as speak with this man.
    Ok, but did the Jesuit Superior (and we all know how liberal the Jesuits are) follow canon law?  Probably not, which is why Fr Feeney didn't speak with him.


    Example:  If you're arrested out-of-state, and you ask the police for a phone call to call your VERY powerful lawyer friend, but they deny your phone call and appoint you some local 2-bit "defense lawyer", wouldn't you refuse to speak to this guy?  Because legally, if you speak to him, then (in some states) this constitutes acceptance of your defense, which means the local judge can then call a trial and charge you.  The smart/legal thing to do is to refuse to talk to this lawyer, avoid the trap, and wait to call your lawyer friend.

    Outsiders who don't know the rules, who don't know all the details, will exclaim, "Man, that guy is guilty, he doesn't even want to talk to a lawyer."  That couldn't be further from the truth.

    Quote
    I believe the archdiocese also summoned Feeney in to discuss his dispute as well.
    If rome has charged you, and the main heretic behind your charge is +Cushing, the head of the archdiocese, why would you talk to him?  He already thinks you're guilty...he's the one who told rome about you.  


    Quote
    And when Feeney appealed to Rome, he was summon to Rome to discuss the matter and refused to go.
    He appealed to rome to ask them 1) give me a formal notice and 2) explain what I did wrong.  He never received this, in violation of canon law.  He was just told to "go to rome". 


    Defendents have rights; canon law must be followed.


    Quote
    Yes, he had numerous opportunities to explain his side to various levels of ecclesiastical superiors, and refused to do so.
    And all these superiors were acting in suspect ways, violating laws, and the rights of the defendent.  It was a setup.


    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13825
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #50 on: March 17, 2023, 02:25:33 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • And all these superiors were acting in suspect ways, violating laws, and the rights of the defendent.  It was a setup.
    Yep, I imagine that the smear campaign against the good Fr. Feeney was successful beyond their wildest dreams, so successful that it's going to be 100 years old before too long - and the masses still believe the crooks are good guys and the good guys are the crooks.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 3479
    • Reputation: +2006/-447
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #51 on: March 17, 2023, 06:11:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Example:  If you're arrested out-of-state, and you ask the police for a phone call to call your VERY powerful lawyer friend, but they deny your phone call and appoint you some local 2-bit "defense lawyer", wouldn't you refuse to speak to this guy?  Because legally, if you speak to him, then (in some states) this constitutes acceptance of your defense, which means the local judge can then call a trial and charge you.  The smart/legal thing to do is to refuse to talk to this lawyer, avoid the trap, and wait to call your lawyer friend.
    .

    I doubt most of the legal principles you describe here are real to begin with, so I don't think this is even an analogy, but the fact that you are putting the most sacred tribunal on this earth, the Holy Office, which operates under the direct supervision of the pope himself, on the level of a shady small town court kind of shows what's wrong with the Feeney side of this whole thing. It's Feeney who is telling you that the cops who arrested him are shady, and that the judge is corrupt. Just like any other criminal. And this isn't just some rural county courthouse; it's the most sacred tribunal on this earth.

    A lot of the Feeneyite position's problems come from assuming their position is correct. So, Feeney refused to speak to the priest sent by his Jesuit superiors to talk to him because this priest didn't believe in the correct doctrine on baptism -- but the correct position according to Feeney. The problem here is that it's the Church that decides what the correct teachings on baptism are, not Feeney. And if Feeney has a dispute with another priest or even bishop on the matter, it's up to the Church to settle it, not Feeney to settle it in favor of himself. But that's exactly what he did, and his followers defend it by assuming Feeney is correct, the Holy OSo why would you take the side of an excommunicated priest against the Holy Office?ffice is wrong (!), the Jesuit order is wrong (!), the bishop of Boston is wrong (!), and that Feeney is therefore exempt even from simple, basic obedience because he is right about a point he disputes with other priests. He doesn't even have to go to Rome to discuss the question when commanded to do so, according to them.

    But how absurd is it to take Feeney's side in this dispute against the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office? As it says in the article I quoted above about the other rebellious priest:

    Quote
    Concerning the worth of the decisions issued by Sacred Roman Congregations, let us recall that Saint Pius X, in the Decree Lamentabilii adjunct to the Encyclical Pascendi, condemned the modernist proposition according to which “They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations.”

    Indeed. If only Feeney had taken this to heart.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10308
    • Reputation: +6219/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #52 on: March 17, 2023, 09:22:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    why would you take the side of an excommunicated priest against the Holy Office?ffice is wrong (!), the Jesuit order is wrong (!), the bishop of Boston is wrong (!)
    1.  The Cardinal in charge of the Holy Office did not publish his charge against Fr Feeney into the AAS.  Therefore, was it an official charge from the Holy Office?  Legally, it can't be.  Or, was it simply a letter from a Cardinal (in rome) to another Cardinal (+Cushing in Boston), disguised and reported as legit, so that liberals could silence someone speaking the truth?  The fact that it wasn't formalized it quite telling.

    2.  ??  You're defending the Jesuits?  All this happened in the 40s.  Just 20 years later, the Jesuits were the ones responsible for defending V2.  You don't think they were super liberal in the 40s? 

    3.  +Cushing was so liberal, he would've fit right in with any of our most Modernist commie "clerics" today. 


    Quote
    the fact that you are putting the most sacred tribunal on this earth, the Holy Office, which operates under the direct supervision of the pope himself, on the level of a shady small town court kind of shows what's wrong with the Feeney side of this whole thing.
    Canon Law is a human invention and it operates just like any other legal authority.  There are rules and procedures to follow, or else the law was violated.  If any institution on the face of the earth should uphold the "innocent until proven guilty" ideal, it's the Church. 


    You are obviously very biased against Fr Feeney and can't look at this situation objectively.


    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13825
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #53 on: March 18, 2023, 04:58:28 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • 1.  The Cardinal in charge of the Holy Office did not publish his charge against Fr Feeney into the AAS.  Therefore, was it an official charge from the Holy Office?  Legally, it can't be.  Or, was it simply a letter from a Cardinal (in rome) to another Cardinal (+Cushing in Boston), disguised and reported as legit, so that liberals could silence someone speaking the truth?  The fact that it wasn't formalized it quite telling.

    2.  ??  You're defending the Jesuits?  All this happened in the 40s.  Just 20 years later, the Jesuits were the ones responsible for defending V2.  You don't think they were super liberal in the 40s? 

    3.  +Cushing was so liberal, he would've fit right in with any of our most Modernist commie "clerics" today. 

    Canon Law is a human invention and it operates just like any other legal authority.  There are rules and procedures to follow, or else the law was violated.  If any institution on the face of the earth should uphold the "innocent until proven guilty" ideal, it's the Church. 


    You are obviously very biased against Fr Feeney and can't look at this situation objectively.
    Seems like a good time to re-post evidence against the criminal who started the whole smear campaign against the dogma and Fr. Feeney - and for his efforts was later elevated to Cardinal....


    Link
    Archbishop of Boston Cushing, was made a Cardinal of the Catholic Church by Pope John XXXIII in 1958.
    He was also one of the cardinal electors in the 1963 papal conclave, which selected Pope Paul VI.
    He was on good terms with practically the entire Boston elite.
    Cushing built useful(?) relationships with Jєωs, Protestants, and institutions outside the usual Catholic community.

    At the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) Cushing played a vital role in drafting Nostra Aetate, the docuмent that officially absolved the Jєωs of deicide charge.

    He was deeply committed to implementing the Council's reforms and promoting renewal in the Church.[16] In an unprecedented gesture of ecuмenism, he even encouraged Catholics to attend Billy Graham's crusades.
    He was a member of the NAACP.
    Oh, and his sister was married to a Jєω

    Link May 1945 - Cushing attends  interfaith dinner

    Link Nov. 1948 -  Archbishop Cushing, dwelling on the need for brotherhood, pledged the friendship of American Catholics with Jєωs.

    Link April 1949 - Archbishop Cushing says teaching the dogma of No salvation outside the Church is “teaching ideas leading to bigotry.” Group is censured for publishing quarterly magazine contending that persons dying outside the Church could not be saved.

    Link April 1949 - New catechism is changed, now upholds Boston College and Archbishop Cushing claim that there is salvation outside the Church.

    Link Oct. 1949 - Fr. Feeney silenced by Archbishop Cushing for preaching there is no salvation outside the Church.

    Link April 1949 - Cushing states: “This absolute requirement of an explicit desire to join the Catholic Church, as a condition of salvation is clearly wrong. All theologians hold that faith and charity or perfect contrition involving an implicit desire to join the Church suffice for salvation.” (Sounds like LoT, Ambrose, &etc.)

    Link Feb. 1953 - Cushing excommunicated “heresy priest” for disobedience, not for heresy.

    Link
    Nov. 1970  - Cardinal Cushing receives praise from the Jєωs

    Jєωιѕн leaders expressed sorrow today over the death yesterday at the age of 75 of Richard Cardinal Cushing. Archbishop of Boston since 1944 and a friend of Israel and the Jєωs. Philip E. Hoffman, president of the American Jєωιѕн Committee, said “Jєωιѕн people throughout the world will always remember with satisfaction Cardinal Cushing’s efforts to achieve an honest and meaningful statement on the Roman Catholic Church and the Jєωs five years ago in Rome at the Second Vatican Council.” Cardinal Cushing he said, “was at the forefront in this tremendously important endeavor,” and “the positive results of Vatican Council II will be a lasting memorial to the Cardinal.” World Jєωry. Mr. Hoffman said, “has lost a friend and champion.” Seymour Graubard, national chairman of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. said Jєωs the world over will always remember the dramatic plea Cardinal Cushing made on the floor of Vatican Council II five years ago in Rome. “His distinctive voice echoed through the chamber as he asked the Council to “cry out” against “any inequity, hatred or persecution of our Jєωιѕн brothers,”

    The UAHC official added that Cardinal Cushing “was a liberal in the truest sense of the word, practicing the principles of ecuмenism long before the term became fashionable.”

    Cardinal Cushing, whose efforts at ecuмenism extended to ѕуηαgσgυє oratory, received a rare tribute when he implored Vatican Council II to reject the doctrine of Jєωιѕн guilt for the death of Jesus. The bishops, who normally do not applaud speakers, did so for him.

    Link July 1977 - Fr. Feeney, silenced in 1949, excommunicated in 1953 for condemning the teachings of Boston College that persons outside the Church could attain salvation after death, was reinstated in 1972 without having to recant his position.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1167
    • Reputation: +818/-70
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #54 on: March 18, 2023, 07:22:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Seems like a good time to re-post evidence against the criminal who started the whole smear campaign against the dogma and Fr. Feeney - and for his efforts was later elevated to Cardinal....


    Link
    Archbishop of Boston Cushing, was made a Cardinal of the Catholic Church by Pope John XXXIII in 1958.
    He was also one of the cardinal electors in the 1963 papal conclave, which selected Pope Paul VI.
    He was on good terms with practically the entire Boston elite.
    Cushing built useful(?) relationships with Jєωs, Protestants, and institutions outside the usual Catholic community.

    At the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) Cushing played a vital role in drafting Nostra Aetate, the docuмent that officially absolved the Jєωs of deicide charge.

    He was deeply committed to implementing the Council's reforms and promoting renewal in the Church.[16] In an unprecedented gesture of ecuмenism, he even encouraged Catholics to attend Billy Graham's crusades.
    He was a member of the NAACP.
    Oh, and his sister was married to a Jєω

    Link May 1945 - Cushing attends  interfaith dinner

    Link Nov. 1948 -  Archbishop Cushing, dwelling on the need for brotherhood, pledged the friendship of American Catholics with Jєωs.

    Link April 1949 - Archbishop Cushing says teaching the dogma of No salvation outside the Church is “teaching ideas leading to bigotry.” Group is censured for publishing quarterly magazine contending that persons dying outside the Church could not be saved.

    Link April 1949 - New catechism is changed, now upholds Boston College and Archbishop Cushing claim that there is salvation outside the Church.

    Link Oct. 1949 - Fr. Feeney silenced by Archbishop Cushing for preaching there is no salvation outside the Church.

    Link April 1949 - Cushing states: “This absolute requirement of an explicit desire to join the Catholic Church, as a condition of salvation is clearly wrong. All theologians hold that faith and charity or perfect contrition involving an implicit desire to join the Church suffice for salvation.” (Sounds like LoT, Ambrose, &etc.)

    Link Feb. 1953 - Cushing excommunicated “heresy priest” for disobedience, not for heresy.

    Link
    Nov. 1970  - Cardinal Cushing receives praise from the Jєωs

    Jєωιѕн leaders expressed sorrow today over the death yesterday at the age of 75 of Richard Cardinal Cushing. Archbishop of Boston since 1944 and a friend of Israel and the Jєωs. Philip E. Hoffman, president of the American Jєωιѕн Committee, said “Jєωιѕн people throughout the world will always remember with satisfaction Cardinal Cushing’s efforts to achieve an honest and meaningful statement on the Roman Catholic Church and the Jєωs five years ago in Rome at the Second Vatican Council.” Cardinal Cushing he said, “was at the forefront in this tremendously important endeavor,” and “the positive results of Vatican Council II will be a lasting memorial to the Cardinal.” World Jєωry. Mr. Hoffman said, “has lost a friend and champion.” Seymour Graubard, national chairman of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. said Jєωs the world over will always remember the dramatic plea Cardinal Cushing made on the floor of Vatican Council II five years ago in Rome. “His distinctive voice echoed through the chamber as he asked the Council to “cry out” against “any inequity, hatred or persecution of our Jєωιѕн brothers,”

    The UAHC official added that Cardinal Cushing “was a liberal in the truest sense of the word, practicing the principles of ecuмenism long before the term became fashionable.”

    Cardinal Cushing, whose efforts at ecuмenism extended to ѕуηαgσgυє oratory, received a rare tribute when he implored Vatican Council II to reject the doctrine of Jєωιѕн guilt for the death of Jesus. The bishops, who normally do not applaud speakers, did so for him.

    Link July 1977 - Fr. Feeney, silenced in 1949, excommunicated in 1953 for condemning the teachings of Boston College that persons outside the Church could attain salvation after death, was reinstated in 1972 without having to recant his position.
    Interesting, the last link, Stubborn. "Fr Feeney was not available for comment of Archbishop Lefebvre's activities". Does anyone know what he thought about ABL and the SSPX?